Theory and application

[sucahyo]

Elias,
Tesla didn't use mechanical switching to achieve his high frequency currents, it was in fact solid state. However it was without semi-conductor technology! He could pull any desired frequency by using a condenser and a spark gap. Reason I underline the condenser bit is that there is a difference between a condenser and a capacitor. Within a capacitor the dielectric gets charged in the same plane as the energy flow while a condenser on the other hand has the dielectric medium charged 90 degrees to this.

Have to be mechanical:

"On Current Interrupters"

I may mention one here, based on a different principle which is incomparably more effective, more efficient and also simpler on the whole. It comprises a fine stream of conducting fluid which is made to issue, with any desired speed, from an orifice connected with one pole of a generator, through the primary of the induction coil, against the other terminal of the generator placed at a small distance. This device gives discharges of a remarkable suddenness, and the frequency may be brought within reasonable limits, almost to anything desired. I have used this device for a long time in connection with ordinary coils and in a form of my own coil with results greatly superior in every respect to those obtainable with the form of device discussed.

I never though there is difference of condenser and capacitor, can you post link or picture?

[Raui]

I can see where you are coming from but keep this in mind; the mechanical switching is used to break the circuit to produce the pulse of much suddenness. A capacitor charging until the break down voltage of the gap will indeed produce a spike but it's not breaking the circuit. So yes given this fact so far mechanical switching is where we need to go. Magnetic quenching is however the second thing to consider, more specifically the effect of the magnet on the plasma arc. The magnetic field attracts the plasma toward the magnet which stretches it. This stretching continues until a breakage in the arc occurs and thus breaking the circuit! So from this we find it is infact desirable to utilize mechanical switching over an ordinary voltage controlled capacitor switch, however the mechanical switching is inferior to magnetically quenched voltage controlled capacitor switch as much higher rates of vibration are attainable.


Regarding the capacitor/condenser relationship and the differences between the two. All one has to do is look at the pictures used in circuit diagrams to find they are different.



I haven't read Tesla literature where he states the difference however it is evident from the circuit symbols they are different. An example of a patent containing the symbol is: Tesla Patent - US Patent 462,418. He also used capacitor symbols in a later patent for example in the following patent: Tesla Patent - US Patent 514168. He still refers to these as condensers as that was the name for them at the time. Their construction is different however. To more support my argument in a later patent than the one containing the capacitor symbol and there are many examples of this condenser symbol all through them.

Energy and their resultant fields have a strange relationship when we consider the factor of 90 degrees. For example perform the following experiment; Grab a compass and a bar magnet. Rotate the magnet perpendicular to the ground. What you will find is the compass will rotate toward the magnet say when the north field approaches the compass however when the south pole is approaching it rotates back in the direction it came from to get align with the south pole. Now do the same with the magnet parallel to the ground. You will find you obtain a constant spin. A very curious result indeed. There are great implications for this experiment let's see if you can find them.

-Raui

[Aaron]

how?

Rotate the magnet perpendicular to the ground.

Now do the same with the magnet perpendicular to the ground.

Hi Raui,

This is very interesting but how to spin the magnet in the second one?
Your description for the first and second are the same.

Thanks!

[Raui]

Oh sorry Aaron my apologies second time move it parallel to the ground. Silly typo thanks for pointing it out.

-Raui

[baroutologos]

@ Raui,

Interesting observation, but IMO its trhe very same.
EDIT: Many have experimented with bottles - salt water (the second symbol you note) yet the same in terms of capacitance.
In any case the actuall capacitors if accurately depicted is the Tesla symbol to be used. (imagine an axial rolled cap)

Actually as far as i am able to tell, the normal capacitor symbol was used for denoting the "variable capacitor", since Tesla had developed two plates (literaly) immensed in oil (or not) that their gap was varied at will. Hence variable capacitor. pretty much as the variable air capacitors of today used in RF.

[Raui]

@baroutologos;
You are right that people do utilize bottle capacitors like leyden jars and such and they show the same effects as parallel plates capacitors. I am still maintaining that when dealing with a true radiant energy there will be a difference though. Look at the following patent - Tesla Patent - US Patent 464,667. The first image is that of a condenser and the other is that of a capacitor. Call it an interesting fact or something practical as for now it's a general hunch

- Raui

[boguslaw]

I don't see the difference.It's just the construction of capacitor/condenser. First one is of bigger capacitance and require a bigger surface of metal.
Such capacitor with only two plates will be too big.

[Raui]

I am working on a device at the moment. When this is done I will be able to test the condenser theory so until then it's just speculation For now the interesting phenomenon is not the condenser/capacitor but the compass experiment I described above cannot be explained conventionally or at least as far as I know. I tried to upload a video of it but then the when I watched the video on youtube it was of a very bad quality.

Raui

[Bob Smith]

Thought I'd copy the following quote from Mike Nunnerly - it stood out for me, and maybe it will help further the conversation about what Daniel's pointing toward:

Now what if we push with another finger on the zero point of the upward motion, two phases in the oscillation, the force needed would be 50% of the first push and the first push could be reduced by 50%, 50% on one side and 50% on the other. What have we achieved, well remember the energy going down was the gravity on mass, well it applies on the other side of the oscillation as well, but we have reduced it by 50%.

It is the pinging [bold added] on both sides of the oscillation and using the mass to gravity twice. Now we have to get the swing to go higher each time or each oscillation, which would require a little harder push or pinging on each side. Now where do we get the extra energy for this? well one way is it increase the mass on the downward phase and loose it on the upward phase. Yes you have, after reaching ZERO energy, to look for that extra energy.

What struck me here was the word "pinging." It is the same term Doc Stiffler uses with his SEC.

Specific high frequency seems to have a bearing on tapping the etheric reservoir or spatial energy lattice. I tend to believe pulsed DC is the key, tho' it may or may not matter in achieving this end.

2 queries in relation to this topic:

Is there a natural excited state for all matter which will enable each substance to produce a kind of quantum liberation of energy?
(Keely seems to have found this thru sound)

Secondly, could obtaining energy from the 'vacuum' be a question of heterodyning the aether with a frequency close to its own natural oscillation, to enable it to release this energy?

Daniel, how am I doin'? )
Bob

[sucahyo]

So from this we find it is infact desirable to utilize mechanical switching over an ordinary voltage controlled capacitor switch, however the mechanical switching is inferior to magnetically quenched voltage controlled capacitor switch as much higher rates of vibration are attainable.

You think higher frequency is better than suddenness? or magnetically quenched switch has as good sudennes as mechanical switching?

The problem of mechanical switch is spark at rather high current. Anyone has mercury switch? do mercury switch sparking?

Regarding the capacitor/condenser relationship and the differences between the two. All one has to do is look at the pictures used in circuit diagrams to find they are different.

Thank, the picture really help. So a condencer is a capacitor with twisted leg to make capacitor plate 90 degree of energy flow?

Energy and their resultant fields have a strange relationship when we consider the factor of 90 degrees. For example perform the following experiment;

I will sure to try it .

I tried to upload a video of it but then the when I watched the video on youtube it was of a very bad quality.

If it's just too dark I can help. You can do it yourself with virtualdub and level plugin. To improve sound you can use winamp and enhancer and wav out plugin.

[Raui]

You think higher frequency is better than suddenness? or magnetically quenched switch has as good sudennes as mechanical switching?
I think a magnetically quenched spark gap breaks the circuit potentially a lot better than mechanical switching. I can think of no other way to produce nanosecond duration impulses in Tesla's day.

Thank, the picture really help. So a condencer is a capacitor with twisted leg to make capacitor plate 90 degree of energy flow?
Yes that is correct. I always used to think about the significance of 90 degrees and energy. For example I remember Aaron saying that John Bedini stated energy likes to travel at right angles aka 90 degrees. According to Vassilatos Tesla's radiant energy flows 90 degrees to current flow. I believe I am starting to discover this significance.

I will sure to try it .
I will re-record the video. The video played fine on my computer but whenever I tried uploading to youtube the video didn't seem to like movement.

Raui

[sucahyo]

I think a magnetically quenched spark gap breaks the circuit potentially a lot better than mechanical switching. I can think of no other way to produce nanosecond duration impulses in Tesla's day.

Thanks. I still suspect that spark may somehow reduce the signal steepness which is important. I never see anyone using liquid conductor though. I see disrupting suddennes as more important than impulse duration. At least I notice different quality of radiant charging when comparing 3055 with 2955 triggered 3055.

[boguslaw]

Thought I'd copy the following quote from Mike Nunnerly - it stood out for me, and maybe it will help further the conversation about what Daniel's pointing toward:


What struck me here was the word "pinging." It is the same term Doc Stiffler uses with his SEC.

Specific high frequency seems to have a bearing on tapping the etheric reservoir or spatial energy lattice. I tend to believe pulsed DC is the key, tho' it may or may not matter in achieving this end.

2 queries in relation to this topic:

Is there a natural excited state for all matter which will enable each substance to produce a kind of quantum liberation of energy?
(Keely seems to have found this thru sound)

Secondly, could obtaining energy from the 'vacuum' be a question of heterodyning the aether with a frequency close to its own natural oscillation, to enable it to release this energy?

Daniel, how am I doin'? )
Bob

Very good questions indeed but too deep for present times.Manipulating mass-energy is dangerous without complete understanding how mater is constructed.
Simpler idea :
if we could heat metal to the state of plasma and apply uniform unidirectional magnetic impulse on mass of plasma-metal then suddenly removing it all atoms should flip back to *naturally forced* position releasing huge energy. Scalar wave Maser.
Hmm..wait a moment ...I heard something that scientist lately found plasma in normal state metals .... did they ?

Another idea : if we could produce EM radiation which effect mass of metal in the same way as changing magnetic field , producing electric current then solution will be even simpler.
If we could enlarge light by using proper combination of lenses and mirrors then why we can't do that in radio range frequency and apply to multiple transformers ?

[Bob Smith]

I thought about my last post today and have to revise my take.
It occurred to me that from all I've read, the aether is not electrical in nature. However, its vitality can be drawn upon so that it is expressed as cold electricity, presumably 'hot' electricity as well, in addition to neural impulses, animal and plant vitality and many other forms.

A few things seem to remain as givens in this process:
-keeping the dipole open
-access thru oscillation, most often suggested as employing high frequency impulses with sharp decline ("pinging") to access this process of drawig upon its vitality - perhaps a rather rudimentary approach that can be vastly improved upon.

Something Daniel mentioned in another thread that might be worth considering here:
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...html#post76248

Also, I would like to add, the atom is simply a small coil, and it's charges can be manipulated into this self resonance mode. Actually it is this self resonance that gives matter it's form.

I believe it was the increasing of this resonance speed that was discussed at the turn of the 19th century, by science and academia, in response to Tesla's work and observations, which led to the public's purposeful miss-direction and deception by the controlling bodies to the belief that the speed of the entire body was being conjectured.

If this is the case, what do we need to get back on track? I don't think it's that difficult, but it means recognizing and removing the blinders deliberately set on the way energy is taught and understood, and approaching it anew.

FWIW...

Bob